DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13 (line 1) “wherein” should recite –wherein: --.
In claim 19 (line 1) “to claim 5” should recite –to claim 6--.
For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 (line 4) recites the limitation "the X shape of the first and second elongated projections". There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations of “the X shape” and “the second elongated projection” in the claim. Examiner notes that such features are defined in claim 6.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the cylindrically shaped body has a third opening, a fastener is configured to be received by the third opening and a fourth opening in the hollow pipe such that the fastener is capable of being positioned within the X shape of the first and second elongated projections”.
It is unclear as to how the fastener radially extends, and is longitudinally-aligned with and/or spatially disposed relative to each of the first and second elongated projections such that the fastener “is capable of being positioned within the X shape of the first and second elongated projections”. It is unclear as to whether such limitations merely require that the fastener radially-inwardly extends within an axially-aligned portion of one of the first and second elongated projections, or whether such limitations require that the fastener radially extends within a space disposed between the adjacent first and second elongated projections. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claim. Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and is likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneseat (GB 2 589 408) in view of Milleman et al. (US 10,159,875).
As to claims 1, 12, 13, 15 and 16, Oneseat discloses a tube connector comprising:
a cylindrically shaped body 4 having a hollow interior defining a cylindrical inner surface therein, the cylindrically shaped body having a first end with a first opening and a second end with a second opening, the first
and second openings both being open to the hollow interior, the cylindrically shaped body having a pipe aligning structure 2,3 within the hollow interior spaced apart from the cylindrical inner surface dimensioned and shaped to receive a hollow pipe 8,9 and center the hollow pipe with the hollow interior;
wherein the first opening of the first end of the cylindrically shaped body is dimensioned and shaped to receive a first hollow pipe 8 and the second opening of the second end of the cylindrically shaped body is dimensioned and shaped to receive a second hollow pipe 9 (Figures 1-13).
Oneseat fails to disclose a tube connector having a compressible resilient elastic material disposed in a recessed portion of the cylindrical inner surface such that an inner surface of the compressible material is generally planar with a remainder of the cylindrical inner surface; wherein the compressible material is configured to be disposed between the hollow pipe and the cylindrical inner surface to eliminate vibrations and enable correction of misalignments; and wherein the cylindrically shaped body includes first and second fastening structures that retains the first and second hollow pipes within respective first and second hollow areas of the cylindrically shaped body.
Milleman et al. teach a tube connector having a compressible resilient elastic material 7204 disposed in a recessed portion 7224 of a cylindrical inner surface of a cylindrical shaped body 7202 such that an inner surface of the compressible material is generally planar with a remainder of the cylindrical inner surface; wherein the compressible material is configured to be disposed between a hollow pipe 112 and the cylindrical inner surface to eliminate vibrations and enable correction of misalignments; and wherein the cylindrically shaped body includes a fastening structure 7230 that retains the second hollow pipe within a hollow area of the cylindrically shaped body; the compressible elastic bushing and fastening structure enabling the hollow pipe to be securely removably coupled within the cylindrically shaped body and ensuring concentric alignment between the members (Figures 72-73; C30 L57-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube connector disclosed by Oneseat to comprise a compressible elastic bushing and a fastening structure, as taught by Milleman et al., within each of the first and second hollow areas of the cylindrical shaped body, in order to enable the hollow pipes to be securely removably coupled within the cylindrically shaped body and to ensure concentric alignment between the members.
As to claim 2, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the hollow interior of the cylindrically shaped body 4 includes a wall 5 dividing a first portion of the hollow interior from a second portion of the hollow interior, the wall being perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the cylindrically shaped body (Figures 1-13).
As to claim 3, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the wall 5 divides the hollow interior into a first hollow area accessed by the first opening and a second hollow area accessed by the second opening (Figures 1-13).
As to claim 4, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the pipe aligning structure 2,3 includes a projection 2 extending from the wall 5 within the first hollow area of the hollow interior (Figures 1-13).
As to claim 7, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the pipe aligning structure 2,3 includes a third elongated projection 3 extending from the wall 5 within the second hollow area of the hollow interior (Figures 1-13).
As to claim 9, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the cylindrically shaped body 4 is made of a plastic/nylon material (P6 L7-10).
As to claim 10, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the cylindrically shaped body 4 is made of plastic (P6 L7-10).
Oneseat fails to disclose that the plastic is polyamide 6. Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific plastic material of the connector.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector disclosed by Oneseat wherein the cylindrically shaped body is made of polyamide 6, as Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific plastic material of the connector, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
As to claim 11, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the cylindrically shaped body 4 is made of metal (P6 L7-10).
Oneseat fails to disclose that the metal is aluminum or an aluminum alloy. Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metal material of the connector.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector disclosed by Oneseat wherein the cylindrically shaped body is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, as Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metal material of the connector, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
As to claim 17, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the cylindrically shaped body 4 includes a first end and second end, and the pipe aligning structure 2,3 is disposed between the first and second ends of the cylindrically shaped body (Figures 1-13).
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneseat in view of Milleman et al., as applied to claims 1, 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Poissant et al. (US 5,690,446).
As to claims 5 and 6, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the projection 2 includes first and second elongated projections that extends from the wall through the first opening such that the first and second elongated projections define an X shape as viewed through the first opening (Figures 1-13).
Oneseat fails to disclose a tube connector wherein the first and second elongated projections extend from the wall to proximate the first opening. Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length the projections extend from the first opening.
Poissant et al. teach a tube connector wherein first and second elongated projections 56 extend from a wall to proximate a first opening (Figures 10-13).
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector disclosed by Oneseat wherein the first and second elongated projections extend from the wall to proximate the first opening, as taught by Poissant et al., as Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length the projections extend from the first opening, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claim 8, Oneseat discloses a tube connector wherein the pipe aligning structure includes a fourth elongated projection 3 that extends from the wall through the second opening such that the third and fourth elongated projections define an X shape as viewed through the second opening (Figures 1-13).
Oneseat fails to disclose a tube connector wherein the fourth elongated projection extends from the wall to proximate the second opening. Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length the projections extend from the second opening.
Poissant et al. teach a tube connector wherein third and fourth elongated projections 56 extend from a wall to proximate a second opening (Figures 10-13).
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector disclosed by Oneseat wherein the fourth elongated projection extends from the wall to proximate the second opening, as taught by Poissant et al., as Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length the projections extend from the second opening, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claim 18, Oneseat fails discloses a tube connector wherein the pipe aligning structure is disposed entirely withing the hollow interior of the cylindrically shaped body. Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length the projections of the pipe aligning structure extend from the first and second openings of the hollow interior.
Poissant et al. teach a tube connector wherein a pipe aligning structure A is disposed entirely withing a hollow interior of a cylindrically shaped body 28 (Figure 10 reprinted below with annotations; engagement portion A of projections 56 of the pipe aligning structure is disposed entirely within the hollow interior of cylindrically shaped body 28; Figures 10-13).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)]
PNG
media_image1.png
371
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector disclosed by Oneseat wherein the pipe aligning structure is disposed entirely within the hollow interior of the cylindrically shaped body, as taught by Poissant et al., as Oneseat does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length the projections of the pipe aligning structure extend from the first and second openings of the hollow interior, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 19 as best understood, Oneseat in view of Milleman et al. and Poissant et al. discloses the claimed tube connector with the exception of wherein the fastener is configured to be received by the third opening and a fourth opening in the hollow pipe such that the fastener is capable of being positioned within the X shape of the first and second elongated projections.
There is no teaching or suggestion, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube connector disclosed by Oneseat in view of Milleman et al. and Poissant et al. to have the above mentioned elemental features. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Momper can be reached on (571)270-5788. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
06/10/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights